S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER the existence of a remedy by way of special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is an alternative remedy which would bar the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226(3), is the meaningful question which has necessitated this reference to the Division Bench.
(2.) IT is wholly unnecessary to advert, to the facts of the case. Mr. K.P. Bhandari, learned Counsel for the Respondents with his illimitable fairness has conceded that the solitary precedent on the point is now categorically against the stand he takes learned Counsel has also not addressed any meaningful contention on principle in support of his stand. An identical issue arose before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd., etc. v. State of West Bengal etc., 1978 Lab & Ind 1575. After an elaborate discussion it was held inter alia that the alternative remedy referred to in Article 226(3) necessarily means a specific remedy provided as such by law and would not bring within its ambit a general remedy by way of a suit, or by moving the Supreme Court to invoke jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, for such relief. In so holding the learned Judges placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in Abad Cotton Manufacturing Company v. Union of India, 1977 Guj 113 and an earlier Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Mahindra Mohan Sarkar v. I.T.C. Siliguri, 1977 Tax. L.R. 1537.
(3.) IT appears to us rather wasteful to tread the same ground all over again and it would amply suffice to say that we entirely agree with the view expressed in Dabur (Dr. S.K. Burman) Pvt. Ltd.'s case (supra). Following the same we would return the answer in the negative to the question formulated at the very beginning of this judgment.;